- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:53:21 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I am conflicted about this draft. On the one hand, it's the design we should have had for HTTP/2. I like that it's more general, saves space in most cases, and includes a flag to request acknowledgment. All these are real improvements. On the other hand, I don't think we need it now, and I'm not convinced that will ever need it. At some level, we can achieve the same effect with careful use of SETTINGS and new frames. For that reason, I'm inclined to keep this on hold until we identify a few things that depend on this. -- on the details: Section 2. I think that SETTINGS_EXTENDED_SETTINGS is redundant. You can simply send the EXTENDED_SETTINGS frame to indicate that you support it and have a reason to do so. In most cases, the need to support the frame will come with a need to send the frame, so it's a pretty simple optimization. What do you want to do about Http2-Settings? Have we given up on the pretense that there is a cleartext variant of HTTP/2?
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2016 04:53:51 UTC